Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. The description adds that it reorders 'all paragraphs', implying a full replacement of ordering, but does not elaborate on side effects, validation, or return behavior beyond that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very brief and to the point, containing only necessary information. The formatting is slightly awkward with the '| context: id, paragraph_ids' suffix, but it does not detract from clarity or economy of words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description sufficiently covers the operation's purpose and parameter roles. While it omits details about errors or return values, such information is not typically required for a straightforward reordering operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters (id and paragraph_ids) are already described in the input schema with clear explanations (e.g., 'Event id returned by cms_list_events'). The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Reorder paragraphs') and the target resource (paragraphs for one CMS agenda event). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling reorder tools for other content types by name and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'Guidance' line explicitly clarifies that the operation applies to 'all paragraphs for one CMS agenda event', providing clear usage intent. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling reorder tools (e.g., cms_reorder_article_paragraphs), though the tool name itself makes the distinction apparent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.